coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1972 respectively and live in Şırnak.
5.  The applicants were taken into police custody on 27 June 1992 and 24 May 1992 respectively on suspicion of their membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). On 9 July 1992 and 8 June 1992 respectively, the applicants were brought before the investigating judge, who ordered their detention on remand.
6.  On 1 September 1992 the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against 49 accused persons, including the applicants. He accused the applicants of carrying out activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State's control. The prosecutor requested the court to sentence the applicants in accordance with Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
7.  On 12 June 1998 the applicants were released pending trial. On an unspecified date in 1998 the second applicant went abroad.
8.  On 3 July 1998 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, composed of three judges including a military judge, delivered its judgment. The court found the applicants guilty of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation and sentenced them to three years and nine months' imprisonment, pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code. The applicants appealed.
9.  In the meantime, on 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of the State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges.
10.  On 14 October 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
11.  On 30 December 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, composed of three civilian judges, recommenced the trial of the applicants. The court further decided to summon all the accused, including the applicants, to the next hearing to submit their views on the Court of Cassation's decision.
12.  During the proceedings, the court repeatedly summoned the applicants; however, the second applicant did not respond. As a result, on 24 December 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided that the file concerning the second applicant be separated and given another file number. It further found the first applicant guilty of membership of a terrorist organisation and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 of the Criminal Code.
13.  On 10 April 2003 the Court of Cassation held that the first applicant's prison sentence should be recalculated and quashed the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
14.  On 30 September 2003 the Diyarbakır State Security Court recalculated the first applicant's prison sentence and decided that he should be sentenced to eight years and four months' imprisonment. This decision became final on 26 February 2004.
15.  On 7 May 2004 State Security Courts were abolished following a constitutional amendment and the second applicant's case was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
16.  On 14 July 2006 the court ordered an arrest warrant for the second applicant. According to the information in the case file, the trial is still pending before the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Šmarje pri Jelšah.
6.  On 8 January 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident which occurred when the applicant was at work. The applicant's employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 13 May 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,608,038 Slovenian tolars (approximately 10,870 euros – EUR) for the injuries sustained.
Between 1 September 1997 and 27 September 1999 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.
On 5 January 2000 he lodged preliminary written submissions.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the first hearing, held on 29 February 2000, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 13 April 2000.
8.  On 21 April 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 22 November 2001, the Celje District Court issued a supplement to the judgment (dopolnilna sodba). On 20 December 2001 the applicant also appealed against the supplement to the judgment.
On 8 August 2002 the Celje Higher Court allowed the applicant's and ZT's appeals in part. The court reduced the damages awarded in the first-instance proceedings and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination as regards the costs of the proceedings. The judgment was served on the applicant on 1 October 2002.
9.  On 7 October 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
He also requested that a judge should withdraw from the proceedings. On 5 July 2004 the President of the Supreme Court rejected the request.
On 1 September 2005 the court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law. The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 October 2005.
10.  Meanwhile, on 16 September 2002, the first-instance court had issued a decision concerning the costs of the proceedings. The applicant's appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Celje Higher Court on 7 January 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in the town of Saransk in the Mordoviya Republic.
5.  In 1990 the applicant obtained a State special-purpose commodity bond (облигация государственного целевого беспроцентного займа). By its terms the Government undertook to give her a Russian-made VAZ passenger car.
6.  It appears that in 1993 the applicant requested the State to comply with its obligation, but it could not be fulfilled for want of cars.
7.  After the change in legislation in 1995 and 1996, the applicant became entitled to compensation in the amount equal to the car value, as described in the bond and determined in co-ordination with car manufacturers at the moment of redemption.
8.  It appears that in August 1998 the applicant received partial compensation.
9.  In November 1999 she sued the Government for the full market value of the car.
10.  By judgment of 25 April 2002, the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saransk awarded her 50,400 Russian roubles (RUB) against the Ministry of Finance. On 4 June 2002 the Supreme Court of the Mordoviya Republic upheld the judgment.
11.  On 19 June 2002 the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings. On 1 July 2002 the bailiff returned the writ of execution to the applicant. On the same date, the applicant re-submitted it to the Ministry of Justice. Upon the Ministry's instructions, on 17 July 2002 the applicant forwarded her writ to the Treasury Department in Moscow.
12.  By letter of 26 August 2002 the Treasury returned the writ to the applicant, indicating that it should be submitted to the Ministry of Finance. The applicant sent the writ to the Ministry on 10 October 2002
13.  On 6 December 2002 the Ministry informed the applicant that it would not enforce the judgment because supervisory-review proceedings had been pending.
14.  The applicant received the monies due to her on 28 April 2006.
4.  The applicants were born in 1939, 1940, 1940, 1937 and 1972 respectively. On 30 January 2007 the second applicant died. By letter of 12 April 2007, Mrs Svetlana Ivanovna Shashkova, the second applicant's widow, informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.
5.  The first applicant was employed by a subsidiary of the State‑controlled “Pivdenelekromash” OJSC (“the Company,” ВАТ “Південелектромаш”) until her dismissal on redundancy in 2005. The other applicants were employed by the Company itself.
6.  Between January 2001 and May 2004 (see appendix for details) each applicant obtained one or more final judgments from the Nova Kakhovka Court (Новокаховський міський суд Херсонської області), awarding him or her salary arrears or other payments against his or her employer.
7.  The writs of enforcement in respect of these judgments were transferred to the Nova Kakhovka City Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новокаховського міського управління юстиції), which initiated the enforcement proceedings. On different occasions the bailiffs informed the applicants that the collection of the debts was impeded by pending bankruptcy proceedings against the Company.
8.  In March 2006 the judgment given in favour of the first applicant and two of the three judgments given in favour of the second applicant were enforced in full. Other judgments remain fully or partially unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Shakhtаrsk, the Donetsk region.
5.  On 20 October 2000 the Shakhtаrsk City Court (Шахтарський міський суд Донецької області) awarded the applicant 4,815.28 hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and compensations from his former employer, the Municipal Communal Service Department (“the Company,” Шахтарське міське госпрозрахункове управління комунального господарства).
6.  This judgment was not appealed against, became final and the enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgment debt.
7.  On 7 April 2003 the Company was declared bankrupt and subsequently liquidated.
8.  The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to seek compensation from the Bailiffs for their failure to enforce the judgment.
9.  The judgment remains unenforced to the present date.
6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Jesenice, Slovenia.
7.  On 18 February 1995 the applicant's alleged common law partner (izvenzakonski partner), S.A.K., died.
8.  On 21 March 1995 the Jesenice Local Court (Okrajno sodišče na Jesenicah) received the coroner's certificate (smrtovnica). S.A.K. was survived by three daughters – one of them, K.Š., was also a daughter of the applicant.
9.  On 12 June 1995 the applicant was given notice of the court's intention to hold a hearing and an invitation to attend it. The hearing took place on 28 June 1995. It appears from the records of the hearing that the applicant participated in the proceedings on her own behalf – as the potential heir – and also represented her juvenile daughter.
10.  The second hearing fixed for 21 January 1998 was cancelled at the applicant's request.
11.  At the third hearing, held on 28 February 1998, the court stayed the inheritance proceedings and instructed the applicant to institute separate civil proceedings with a view to determining the legal nature of her relationship with S.A.K.
12.  Consequently, on 9 March 1998 the applicant lodged a claim with the Jesenice Local Court, which, due to lack of jurisdiction, referred the case to the competent Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju).
The first hearing, scheduled for 13 September 1999, was called off at the request of the applicant. The Kranj District Court afterwards held three hearings between 10 February 2000 and 5 December 2000.
Between 13 September 1999 and 3 November 2000 the applicant lodged five preliminary written submissions.
At the hearing on 5 December 2000 the court issued a judgement rejecting the applicant's claim. The court found that she could not be considered S.A.K.'s common law partner at the time of his death and thus had no inheritance rights in respect of his estate.
The applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) in January 2001. On 6 March 2002 the court dismissed her appeal. The Ljubljana Higher Court's judgment was served on the applicant on an unspecifed day in March 2002.
13.  Subsequently, the inheritance proceedings continued before the Jesenice Local Court. The latter issued a decree of distribution (sklep o dedovanju) on 12 February 2003. Relying on the judgments of 5 December 2000 and 6 March 2002 (paragraph 12 above), the court did not include the applicant as one of S.A.K.'s heirs. The decision was served on the parties to the proceedings on 28 February 2003.
4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Cornu.
5.  In 1950, the real estate made up of two apartments and the appurtenant land situated in Bucharest, Regina Maria blvd. nos. 36-38, the property of the applicant's parents, was seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation. The applicant continued to live in a flat situated in building no. 38 as a tenant of the State.
6.  On 15 January 1996 the applicant claimed restitutio in integrum of building no. 38 and compensation for building no. 36. On 15 June 2000, the Bucharest Town Council rejected her demand. The applicant contested the decision before the courts.
7.  On 2 March 2001, the Bucharest District Court upheld the applicant's action by a final judgment, declaring void the decision of the Town Council and ordering the administrative authorities to return to the applicant the real estate no. 38, made of three buildings and appurtenant land of 208 m².
8.  In 2001, on an unknown date, the applicant claimed from the administrative authorities the restitution in kind of 450 m² of land appurtenant to buildings nos. 36 and 38. By a decision of 12 July 2002, the Bucharest Town Council allowed the application and granted restitutio in integrum of the appurtenant land of 314 m² for no. 36 and 136 m² for no. 38.
9.  In spite of obtaining judicial recognition of her property right, the applicant was not able to recover possession of flats nos. 1 and 2 of building no. 38 because on 30 September 1996 the State had sold them to the tenants, under Law no. 112/1995, together with the land appurtenant to each flat.
10.  On 6 February 2002, the applicant requested the court to find that the sale by the State was null and void. She considered that the State did not have a right of property, that it had not observed the legal provisions of Law no. 112/1995 and that the purchasers were in bad faith.
11.  On 1 February 2005, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed the request for the rescission of the sale contracts on the ground that the State had complied with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 and that the tenants had made the purchase in good faith.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On an unspecified date in 1993, a detained member of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan) confessed to the authorities that a number of lawyers, among whom was the applicant, had been operating as undercover members of the organisation. Upon his confession, the public prosecutor attached to the State Security Court of Diyarbakır initiated a criminal investigation.
7.  On 23 November 1993 the applicant was taken into custody, where he denied any association with the PKK.
8.  On 20 December 1993 he was brought before a judge, who ordered his release pending trial.
9.  On 22 December 1993 the prosecutor filed an indictment, charging the applicant, together with twenty-two other lawyers, with being a member of the PKK. The specific charges against him included the transmission of messages, documents and money among the incarcerated PKK members, the sheltering and healing of a wounded PKK militant and the delivery of 2 kilograms of heroin belonging to the PKK from Diyarbakır to Istanbul. The prosecutor subsequently charged nine other persons with similar crimes. Their cases were also joined to that of the applicant.
10.  With a hearing on 17 February 1994, the State Security Court of Diyarbakır began the trial. At the same hearing, it ordered the release of all the accused who had not been already released by then.
11.  On 19 September 1996 the prosecutor filed his observations on the merits.
12.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge.
13.  On 21 December 2000 Law no. 4616 governing conditional release, discontinuation of proceedings and suspension of the execution of sentences for offences committed before 23 April 1999 came into force.
14.  On 22 February 2001 the court held that all of the accused were eligible, under the new legislation, for the discontinuation of the proceedings against them. Accordingly, it discontinued the proceedings against the applicant, to be resumed only if he were to be convicted of an offence of the same or a more serious kind within a five-year period.
15.  On 22 February 2006 the five-year period expired and, no information from the applicant to the contrary having been submitted, the suspended criminal case against the applicant would appear to have been definitively dropped.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Wrocław.
5.  On 12 March 1994 the applicant filed a claim for payment against a contractor before the Wrocław Regional Court, Commercial Law Division.
6.  On 21 February 1995 the case file was transferred to the competent Civil Law Division of the same court.
7.  On 12 October 1995 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the claim and the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.
8.  The judgment was quashed on 27 March 1996 by the Wrocław Court of Appeal and the case remitted for re-examination.
9.  On 24 October 1997 the Wrocław Regional Court again disallowed the applicant's action and his subsequent appeal was dismissed on 14 May 1998 by the Wrocław Court of Appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 10 December 1998.
10.  On 22 December 1998 the President of the Wrocław Court of Appeal, in reply to the applicant's hierarchical complaint, stated that the length of the proceedings was excessive.
11.  On 11 January 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal through his legal-aid lawyer appointed on 21 December 1998. He maintained, inter alia, that he had not been informed by the courts in due time about the possibility of having a legal-aid lawyer appointed to his case.
12.  On 11 May 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal, having found that there was no need of interpretation of provisions which did not give rise to serious difficulties, no flagrant breach of law and no grounds for nullity of proceedings.
13.  On 1 June 2001 the afore-said decision was served on the applicant.
14.  On 22 October 2004 the applicant lodged a claim for damages under section 16 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code. He sought compensation in the amount of PLN 10,000.
15.  The complaint was rejected on 29 November 2004 by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds. The court further noted that even if the claim had not been dismissed for formal shortcomings it would have been in any event inadmissible as time-barred.
4.  The applicants were born in 1925 and 1927, respectively, and live in Lublin, Poland.
5.  On 21 May 1993 the applicants' neighbours were granted a permission to construct a shop on the ground floor of their house. The applicants appealed but the decision was upheld on 19 July 1993.
6.  On an unspecified date in 1994 the applicants applied to have the decision declared null and void. They submitted that the decision had been issued in violation of the local zoning plan and that the shop had been causing them nuisance.
7.  On 11 April 1994 the Minister of Planning (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) dismissed their application. The applicants appealed.
8.  On 22 February 1995 the Chief Building Inspector (Główny Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned decision.
9.  The Chief Building Inspector informed the applicants in his letters of 30 December 1995, 30 January, 28 February and 26 March 1996 that the proceedings could not be terminated yet and that he had fixed new time-limits. The Inspector explained that the main reason for the delay had been the necessity to obtain an expert opinion, which had been ultimately submitted on 9 April 1996.
10.  On 18 April 1996 the Chief Building Inspector refused to annul the decision of 21 May 1993. The Inspector informed the applicants that the decision was final and that they could lodge a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).
11.  On 4 June 1996 the first applicant lodged a complaint against the decision with the Supreme Administrative Court.
12.  On 23 April 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court held a hearing and rejected the applicant's complaint as it had been lodged in breach of procedural requirements. The court established that the applicant should have first lodged an appeal with the Chief Building Inspector asking him to reconsider the case. The court further advised the applicant that since the procedural mistake had occurred due to his being wrongly advised by the Inspector in the decision of 18 April 1996, he could apply for leave to appeal out of time.
13.  On 25 May 1998 the first applicant appealed to the Inspector to reconsider the case and applied for leave to lodge an appeal out of time.
14.  On 4 June 1998 the Chief Building Inspector granted leave to appeal out of time, examined the appeal, and upheld his decision of 18 April 1996.
15.  On 30 September 1998 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of 4 June 1998.
16.  On 5 October 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaint.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Gaziantep.
6.  In 2000 the applicant retired from his work at the Municipality. On 28 August 2000 the town council calculated the applicant's pension benefits at 11,981,741,000 Turkish liras[1] and ordered its payment.
7.  On 18 May 2001 the applicant applied to the execution office, requesting the payment of his pension benefits, plus interest at the rate of 95%. The Municipality objected to the applicant's interest request.
8.  On 5 June 2001 the applicant filed an action before the Islahiye Enforcement Court to annul the Municipality's objection.
9.  On 6 December 2001 the court partially upheld the applicant's request. It ordered the Municipality to pay the applicant's wages and indemnities, plus interest at the statutory rate running from 15 September 2000. It upheld the applicant's request in respect of severance benefit which had to be paid together with interest at the highest annual bank deposit rate.
10.  In the absence of an appeal the judgment became final on 20 December 2001.
11.  The execution authority made several unsuccessful attempts to attach the Municipality's property in order to secure the payment of the debt.
12.  On 1 August 2002 the applicant sent a letter to the President of the Republic, complaining about the Municipality's failure to pay his pension benefits.
13.  On 9 September 2002 the President's Office forwarded this letter to the Ministry of the Interior for an inquiry into the matter.
14.  In reply, the Mayor of Islahiye explained in his letter of 11 October 2002 that the Municipality's outstanding debts to 60 retired staff exceeded its budget. He maintained that the Municipality had therefore offered to make the payments in instalments. However, the applicant had refused this offer.
15.  On 6 January 2003 the applicant requested the Gaziantep Governor's Office to intervene on his behalf in order to facilitate the execution of the Enforcement Court's decision.
16.  According to the information in the case file, as submitted by the parties, the relevant judgment debt is still outstanding.